PROMISCUITY

First - what is the point of characterizing someone as "promiscuous"? What purpose does it serve? How does it advance humanity in any meaningful way? How does it strengthen relationships between human beings? What's the point?

That is something for the topic starter to answer, don't you think? You should be directing that question to Popcorn. From the interest it has generated I would NOT be questioning the validity of the topic as the web-master if I were you.

quote:

I can hear Henry38 saying - "well, they ARE promiscuous". How does that differ from someone calling you a nigger? You say, well their behavior makes them promiscuous. They say, well your skin color makes you a nigger. Does that get us anywhere? Again, what's the point?

That is a pretty trivial silly comment. My skin color is what I am born with, it is not a lifestyle as promiscuity is. How can you come up with a comparison like that? It's like you are saying I am limited in my functions as a person because I am black. And that is a statement coming from a fellow black man? I am shocked. From your logic I can not say someone is a thief because if I do he would say I am a nigger. LOL. Wake-up one is a lifestyle that one can do make a conscious decision to stop or pursue whiles the other is genetic and one can not do anything about. The example is very silly indeed.

Back to the comment, "where does it get us?" I suggest you read the comments of the consequences of female promiscuity as opposed to male promiscuity. It looks like you conveniently ignored that or you would not be asking this question

quote:

More importantly - THERE WOULD BE NO "PROMISCUOUS" WOMEN IF MEN WEREN'T SLEEPING WITH THEM. It is the most ridiculous argument to me to malign women when the behavior you attack is wholly dependent upon their interaction with men.

I'll agree that there would not be promiscuous women if there were no men to sleep with them but then again it sounds like again you are missing the point altogether. It's like saying if there are no houses then there would be no burglars to rob them. So what, people should not build houses?

Men the world over are the same i.e. they are promiscuous, but when was the last time you heard women from Asia and Middle East labeled as promiscuous? If these women are seen as virtuous then from your logic the men from this part of the world do not sleep around. Pleeeaaase, you and I know better.

However that is beside the point. Again I would rather refer you back because you really need to understand the points made about responsibilities and consequences. Please understand no one is ignoring the role men play in this behavior. In fact if you checked my last post I said I have never come across any man that would defend male promiscuity. The point made in case you missed is that the damage these men do is limited. A promiscuous woman on the other hand is whole new ball game.

If I take a woman and educate her it is highly likely her children would follow her example and become highly educated people. That would create a strong and prosperous society.

If I take another woman and set her on a course of drug taking, thieving prostitution etc. What do you think are the chances her children achieving anything in life? More importantly do you think this woman would pass her depraved lifestyle to her children?

Please try and contrast the above carefully and understand the points made then you should see THE POINT of this conversation. Our women are the foundation on which our society is built, please try and understand that. Justifying or comparing women behavior to what their menfolk do is a wrong idea.

henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?

Originally posted by MBM:I guarantee you - get a sample of 100 black men and 100 black women. Ask them how many partners they have had in their lives. Which do you think, on average, will have had MORE partners?

Are you suggesting you would get a truthful answer to that question from women? You are sounding very naive about womens sexuality here.

Here let me ask you just to gauge how much you know about women.

If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women

If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women

I'd say the entire construct of your question is at the root of your problem. You believe that it is perfectly acceptable for men to act in a manner that is "predatory" - to act without conscience and propriety. Yet you hold women to a standard that is at a completely different level. In addition, you hold them completely responsible for the by-product of behavior which, be definition, involves both men and women.

This from a man who goes on and on about his righteousness and piety!

BTW - why don't YOU answer a question for a change instead of just spouting off endlessly?

Originally posted by MBM:henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?

What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld

If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women

I'd say the entire construct of your question is at the root of your problem. You believe that it is perfectly acceptable for men to act in a manner that is "predatory" - to act without conscience and propriety. Yet you hold women to a standard that is at a completely different level. In addition, you hold them completely responsible for the by-product of behavior which, be definition, involves both men and women.

This from a man who goes on and on about his righteousness and piety!

Really where? Becareful not to make accusations if challeneged you can not prove or substantiate

Oh I see because I answer your questions in the religious section that makes me come across as righteous and pious. I would say your roots are showing. I would know never to vist that section of your website again.

Besides you never answered my question. I need to know if I am wasting my time with you or not.

Originally posted by MBM:henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?

What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld

Well, I guess we are clear now then. You only see the world from your own extraordinarily limited and narrow perspective. You appear incapable of comprehension, cognition and analysis beyond what's at the end of your nose.

Originally posted by MBM:henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?

What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld

Well, I guess we are clear now then. You only see the world from your own extraordinarily limited and narrow perspective. You appear incapable of comprehension, cognition and analysis beyond what's at the end of your nose.

Limited and narrow? Incapable of comprehension. That sounds like insults to me and from my experience that is what happens when the other side has no argument

Limited and narrow? Incapable of comprehension. That sounds like insults to me and from my experience that is what happens when the other side has no argument

We're talking about society and the behaviors of men and women in it. You respond to a question about society with what your mother and father did. So what? Who cares? How on Earth is that relevant to the broad question? Answer: it is relevant only to the extent that your particular family is reflective of society. Since you, henry38, represent about 1/5,000,000,000 of society - I would think that it would be fairly safe to call that a "limited" and "narrow" subset. Don't you?

Furthermore, since you answered based upon personal experience and personal experience alone, you infer that that is the only data from which you establish your opinions. Since there is an extraordinary amount of information - beyond your personal experience - available about this issue, then your decision to base your perspective off of such an enormously limited (and perhaps even irrelevant) data set suggests either an unwillingness to consider other information - or an inability. Beyond that, it suggests an unwillingness to really grasp the facts and complexity of the "problem". Apparently you'd rather wallow in your sexism than accept any responsibility in the issue.

Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male? Is not that a double standard of God and nature? Why is the acknowledgement of the different roles of men and women and behaviorism conducive to those roles considered sexist?

Again, I contend that male behavior in a free society is commanded by what male behavior the women in the free society will reward with sex, given that sex is a males primary objective and obsession. This is not rocket science. Thus, in order to change male behavior women must first change their reward behavior. If men want to control the behavior of women, they must control their behavior of reward of women, by the same token. The problem arises when men and women don't want the same thing to the same degree. In short, if it is your opinion that male behavior should change...it implies that the behavior of men that women are rewarding must change. Remember...women are making these decision from free will.

What men really want is being rewarded by the trend in female behavior, but what women really want is not being reward by current male behavior. Thus, the males are winning while the females are losing. However, when the females lose, the institution of family loses as well, as well as society as a whole.

In think that intra-female competition for men helps to exacerbate female promiscuity. Life is a competition and if a women believes that to be competitive in the game of catching and trying to keep a man, that she has to give it up, lest the next women will and hence get the man, it becomes a race to the bottom for female virtue. Women are attempting to outbid one another for the often short term contract of alpha male affection and attention. They bid via sexuality and willingness to attempt to maximize a males pleasures by various means. Much of this behavior is rooted in insecurity as too many women are not truly confident in who and what they are which leads them seeking validation from a mans attention.

As the proverb states: War between grasshoppers delights the crows. In this case, the crows are men and as long as women are competing with one and other for men and not unifying to control the behavior of men by what they reward, women are going to continue to come out with the short end of the stick.

Read my answer again I remember saying something like, "I am confident you would get the same response the world over."

The world over thinks you're a nigger and genetically inferior to white people. So what? Beyond that, IMHO, there are far more men who are evolved enough to see past this 19th century view of the world than you think.

quote:

Why don't you do a poll and ask the question here and now and maybe it would give you a clue of how things work in the house.

Sex involves both a man and a woman. Yet women who engage in sex (with men) risk the characterization of being "promiscuous" while men are "playas".

Respectfully, whoever believes this is appropriate is both morally and intellectually retarded.

Now you are insulting my color when we are talking about behaviours. Wow MBM what an eye opener.

If you think those of us in this post that don't agree with you are retarded, well then I am in a good league because I have NEVER EVER come across any man that thinks female promiscuity is OK. You are in the minority.

Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male?

You know this is hilarious. The same folks who go on and on about the sanctity of the traditional FAMILY and the Godliness of a man and woman in relationships when opposing gay marriage somehow forget the man when talking about this issue. Suddenly now the child is the exclusive responsibility and domain of the woman.

Regarding male behavior, you know when we're born we have the impulse to shit whenever and wherever we are when the urge comes to us. Do we learn to control our impulses and behavior or do we shit at will? Are we thinking, rational adults, human beings - or are we just a mere bundle of nerves and impulses incapable of self-control or thought?

Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male?

You know this is hilarious. The same folks who go on and on about the sanctity of the traditional FAMILY and the Godliness of a man and woman in relationships when opposing gay marriage somehow forget the man when talking about this issue. Suddenly now the child is the exclusive responsibility and domain of the woman.

Regarding male behavior, you know when we're born we have the impulse to shit whenever and wherever we are when the urge comes to us. Do we learn to control our impulses and behavior or do we shit at will? Are we thinking, rational adults, human beings - or are we just a mere bundle of nerves and impulses incapable of self-control or thought?

I would hope that you would first link words of mine to thoughts on Gay marriage before you integrate it into a debate. However true your statement may be, it has nothing to do with me because I have never voiced an opinion here in regards to Gay marriage.

Yes, we are born with the impulse and need to defecate when the need arises and we never stop defecating from childhood to adulthood. People do not defecate at will, but by impulse. Sure, you may be able to hold it an hour or so but you still going to take that dump...sooner or later. By the same token, just because males are being promiscuous does not mean that they have not held back their impulses. In other words, it is false to assume that men are having sex every time the urge comes up. If that was the case most of us would be screwing all the time and never passing up a women without trying to get in her pants. Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward....in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses, like a newborn, as in your analogy.

Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward...in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses

As do promiscuous women. She is not necessarily screwing everything that passes in front of her face. But she will never get the same credit you so willingly lavish on men who may pass up the occassional toothless hobo.

We can't even come to a concensus for what number of sexual partners and frequency of sexual activity makes one positively promiscuous. Any woman who's number of sexual partners is too high for your liking is promiscuous.

As usual, the Black woman is always the alpha and the omega of all the Black community's problems. If we really try perhaps we can come up with a few reasons for why the Black woman is completely and solely responsible for racism in this country. Christ. Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.

Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld

Bro...speak for yourself...my mother dealt with the domestic issues to a certain extent....my Dad set the tone for me and my brothers and Mom backed him and re-inforced what he said do with threats of having him get our azz straight....and when it came to issues of manhood...my Pops handled that one except for the issues about women, how to treat em......what to look for in one....and what kind that is fulla schit and to tell to kiss your azz when you are trying to do the right thing and she ain't feeling it...My Mom dictated schit to my sister....and back in that day...black women didn't f-k around with their daughters and all that hoochie azz behavior predicated on being a floosie and not being able to be told schit without givng flack to the parent.....back then....like Slick Rick said in the song Children's Story....the moral of the story is "straight and narrow or your soul gets cast".........parents both play a nuturing and disciplinary role...and that is more divided between Mom and Dad as the kid gets older..........

Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.

Henry...please read this and absorb it.....because this statement is not even up for debate....don't embarrass yourself dogg...and i'm coming at ya as a homie......

henry38 (and perhaps Noah The African), if we were all to take your advice and begin to ruthlessly root out and shame all the promiscuous Black women, who would we be looking for? All women who have had sex before marriage? How many sexual partners would she need to have to qualify? Does time period matter (eg. Is 40 partners by age 15 the same as 40 partners by age 80)? How many abortions would she need to have had (if any)? Does an abundance of oral or anal or digital sex partners count toward her promiscuity total? Does it matter if she is on the receiving end or the giving end? Do rapes count toward her total? Does it matter if she was in some sort of relationship with these men?

Also bear in mind what these promiscuous women get up to is not their own business as some would have us believe. Their actions hurt a whole lot of people. They degrade and tarnish the reputation of the entire race of black women. They are baby killers and through their recklessness and subsequent abortions have killed more black people than slavery, the KKK and racist America all put together.

To date, I haven't commented on this thread because I find the whole female-promiscuity=Bad/Male promiscuity=Human Nature discussion fallacious.

Such labelling says way more about a male's attempt/need to control a female, than anything about her promiscuity (whatever that means).

IMHO, those men concerned about female promiscuity, at the root, are more concerned with their personal insecurity regarding their ability to measure up (pardon the pun) to those that have gone before them.

Honestly, every man somewhere in the back of our mind wants to know (No, I don't...Yes, I do...No, I don't) how we compare to other lovers. We want/need to be, or believe that we are, the woman's "best" lover, ever. That is why there is such a premium on female virginity. "If I'm the first, I have to be her best. And, if I can brow-beat her into believing this promiscuity=Bad thing, I will always be her best."

But it's not about her, it's about our perception of us. If a ["promiscious"] woman told a man that he was her absolute best lover [even if she was lying, and the man didn't know it] and therefore would never leave him, her promiscuity would never be a problem.

So brothas, let's give this, "I'm looking out for the race" thing a rest. Every problem with female promiscuity cited here, has a male somewhere, and equally, involved. Stepping up to this fact is what manhood is about.

Well, many of you sisters have obviously missed my point. Males will behave in a manner in which women reward...which means that women have the power and control...not the men. As young men, we quickly learn what types of brothers and behavior women are attracted to, because we get our queue from the brothers who have all the fine women and try to emulate their technique and method of operation. Now, that might not be scientific methodology employed by young males, but seeing and doing is the most prolific learning methodology in nature. Hence, male youth are conditioned to emulate such behavior by their biological directive to be with females.

In the land of Utopia, which many of you seem to have immigrated to, one can simply make a suggestion that males should take it upon themselves to not be promiscuou and PRESTO..it manifests. However, in the real world, where I reside, men need an incentive to change their behavior. They are not going to change simply from the power of suggestion, like in your world of Utopia, which is the only plan offered by Utopians. Men will only be inspired to change when women start rewarding a different set of male behaviors. That's not blaming women, that's simply recognition of the power women have over the control of men. It only works via collective effort and commitment.

The same holds true for how to change women behavior, which is vie men rewarding a different set of behaviors. The problem is, however, that male biological instincs will lead them to reward promicous behavior in women. What I am saying is that for the most part...men are happy with promicous women with th only draw back being that they are not marriage material. However, who needs marriage when you can have sex, kids and variety from a growing pool of promisuous women? Thats having your cake and eathing it too.

The greatest responsibility goes to those with the greatest power. The fact that women do not recognize their own power or do not want to assume the responsibility of the power is born from their own insecurities. As I said, women have the most valuable role in nature, not men as men are expendable and that is why traditionally they go out and fight the wars because even if the majority of them are killed, the supply of eggs and wombs is more important to being fruitful and multiplying than is the supply of sperm donor.

I would suggest that some of you women not let your personal insecurity about possible being promiscuous taint your examination of the collect condition. I am not a promiscuous man and thus I am not defending male promiscuity because I have been hedonistically rewarded from the practice. My opinion is not born from a "defensive" position in which I feel I need to rationalize an acceptance for my own behavior by ignoring it.

Men, for the most part, are not the ones complaining. Women voice most of the complaints. You might hear men lamenting about how discussed they are about scantily clad women who appear on some video.... but when they see it they aren't turning the channel and in fact many move in for a closer look. Consequently, men are reveling in female promiscuity and raunchiness. The number one business on the Internet is pornography, which is primarily a male customer base. Men are simply taking advantage of the decline of female virtue and promote even promote it, secretly or openly. No one is forcing these women to get on TV and leaving nothing to the imagination or to go to clubs with their tig bitties and bog biities all hanging out.

When one takes an inventory of feelings, it's really the women who are the unhappiest with the current situation and are the loneliest. Thus, if women are the loneliest and unhappiest from the current situation, then it only makes sense that they will be the ones to take responsibility for changing it. Don't expect the male to change when he is....having a ball.

Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward...in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses

As do promiscuous women. She is not necessarily screwing everything that passes in front of her face. But she will never get the same credit you so willingly lavish on men who may pass up the occassional toothless hobo.

We can't even come to a concensus for what number of sexual partners and frequency of sexual activity makes one positively promiscuous. Any woman who's number of sexual partners is too high for your liking is promiscuous.

As usual, the Black woman is always the alpha and the omega of all the Black community's problems. If we really try perhaps we can come up with a few reasons for why the Black woman is completely and solely responsible for racism in this country. Christ. Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.

Woman who is seen turning down very attractive, prospective mates, "She must be saving herself for the right one or marriage"

Man who is seen turning down very attractive, prospective mates, "He must be gay"

Class Act, American Pie, and several other movies I can't recall serve as paradigm's for this macho sexuality, that many young men face day to day. Time and again you see Fathers in these movies questioning the sexuality of their sons when their sons don't prematurely indulge in sexual behavior. To a certain extent promiscuity is applauded and encouraged by the Father's of these men in movies and TV shows.

I share the frustration in the double-standard of sexuality. I'm frustrated with the fact that we sit idly by and watch the peer pressure that young men go through, wait for them to fail, just to get the chance to call them 'dogs'. I'll stray away from the land of Utopia that is prevalent amidsts this discussion, and address the issue of 'Manhood'. Much of our peers equate our 'manhood' with our degree of sexual intercourse. Some men went through so much pressure that they had to lie about their sexual 'status', in order to be accepted into the male clich without being belittled or held under critical skepticizm.

*weak argument*Do women in general desire a mate that is a virgin? Or are they more sexually responsive to a mate that appears to be more sexually experienced?

Women hold eachother to higher moral standards, but replace these standards in men with quality instead of morality.

It would appear that I suggest that the onus lies with women. However, IMHO I think the onus lies with the 'FATHERS' of men; who should encourage their sons to live to a higher standard of sexuality and preserve themselves for 'the right one'.

---------

Problem is... most of these 'dogs' didn't have a father. So without a father alot of men emulate their peers, so in essence they are raised by their peers which is obviously problematic.

Noah The African, you sidestepped completely defining this promiscuous behavior in women that is dragging down men who are simply at the mercy of their biology.

In defining it, you would see that the criteria is completely subjective. In use, the word is frequently trotted out only to denigrate women who do not fit into your moral box, however small or large it may be. THAT is the problem. Women should stop rewarding promiscuous behavior? Fine. How many sexual partners is the cut off limit before we women refuse to date a man or sleep with him? Do kids matters? Does frequency matter? Etc. There can be no consensus!

If you choose to date women with under a certain number of sexual partners or a certain amount of sexual experience, then fine. Knock yourself out. But if we are going to attempt some sort of change, it has to be on something other than this shaky, sexist persecution.

quote:

I would suggest that some of you women not let your personal insecurity about possible being promiscuous taint your examination of the collect condition.

I was wondering when that line was going to make an appearance in this thread. Anyone railing against the labelling of other people's sexual activities must be insecure about their promiscuous behaviors? I guess anyone marching against AIDS must have it? Come on, Noah. Wrong is wrong and you don't need to suffer from it to recognize it and speak out against it. Nor should we.

quote:

Men, for the most part, are not the ones complaining.

Of course not! That is the very crux of sexist behavior. It's good for men and men only!

quote:

You might hear men lamenting about how discussed they are about scantily clad women who appear on some video.... but when they see it they aren't turning the channel and in fact many move in for a closer look. Consequently, men are reveling in female promiscuity and raunchiness.

Scantily-clad women are now being labelled as promiscuous??? She can be called promiscuous without any idea of whether or not she's had sex, huh? I guess she just has that promiscuous look. It is enough for you that she has her "tig ol bitties" hanging out. It is enough for some other men that she simply HAVE big breasts. Not surprising because that is the same way this language is used toward women everyday.

quote:

When one takes an inventory of feelings, it's really the women who are the unhappiest with the current situation and are the loneliest. Thus, if women are the loneliest and unhappiest from the current situation, then it only makes sense that they will be the ones to take responsibility for changing it.

Certainly! I contend it is sexists and misogynists we should be viciously rooting out and shaming. Women cannot continue to let men tear down their fellow sisters. Women cannot continue to buy into sexists garbage designed to leave them always on the short end of the stick.

Frenchy, First, women are not dragging down men, rather, men have been morally low down for a long time and women, in quest for equality, are dragging themselves down tying to reach parity with men. Secondly, it's more than a number that determines promiscuity. I would say that any person who would have sex in the first two weeks of dating is promiscuous, because you don't really know the person and can't truly be in love. If you are having sex in the first week or first date, a person is as very promiscuous.

One, I have consistently exalted women as the highest and most valuable form of humanity for natures objectives.

Two, I have consistently stated that men are puppets of what women reward, which implies that it is women who control men.

Three, I have shown that sex comes with more risk for women than it does for men, which means that women should naturally be more careful and responsible for their own protection.

Four, I have stated, and no one has disproved or even attempted to disprove, that men and women are biological unequal and were given different roles by nature. Thus, one cannot make equality out of an inequality, especially when nature programs it that way.

Five, I have demonstrated that survival and recreation, via the continuation of the bloodline, is the prime biological impulses of life and how males propensity for promiscuity serves a biological purpose, where there is little species benefit to female promiscuity.

AM I a sexist? Yes I am. Given that the suffix "ist" denotes one who performs the root word that it is affixed to....the fact that I do perform it makes me guilty as charged. However, the pejorative popular usage in which you presented it is also correct. You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child. When the world is destroyed, the destruction will be testosterone driven. Women are the salvation for humanity...but only if and when they recognize their worth and power as women and stop trying to create equality with men by striving to emulate male behaviorisms. The female in nature is meant as a counter weight or balance of the male and the male the counter weight and balance of the female in order to form the proper equilibrium for humanity and the rearing of offspring. When females try to behave like males and when males try to behave like female, disequilibria and chaos is the result, because the genders were never meant to be biological or behavioral equals as women are striving for.

Two, I have consistently stated that men are puppets of what women reward, which implies that it is women who control men.

I think men are attracted to sex. Period. They do not do what women "reward" IMO as much as they do what - as you infer - their testerone tells them to do. There is a difference. In this way, again IMHO, women are not responsible for male behavior. The responsibility for male behavior lies squarely with men.

quote:

Three, I have shown that sex comes with more risk for women than it does for men, which means that women should naturally be more careful and responsible for their own protection.

This is only true if it presupposes that men are not responsible for the product of their sexual behavior. This approach implicitly takes men 'off the hook' for doing the right thing by their partners and by their children. Frankly, (and I do not imply that you personally are suggesting this) I think this subtle assumption is at the root of much of the problems of the black family. If we tacitly accept that women are somehow MORE responsible for children just because they are the ones who bear them, then we inappropriately excuse men of their rightful responsibility. This has hugely negative consequences and is overhwlmingly unfair to women and their children.

quote:

Four, I have stated, and no one has disproved or even attempted to disprove, that men and women are biological unequal and were given different roles by nature. Thus, one cannot make equality out of an inequality, especially when nature programs it that way.

Being biologically "unequal", IMO, has no bearing on male behavior or how we administer the characteristics of responsibility and judgment and discipline etc. in our lives.

Would you excuse the behavior of a woman who deceives a man about birth control in an effort to selfishly have a baby - merely by saying that women may have a biological need to procreate? I don't think many men would just merely let that go because of "biology".

We are adult human beings. We are thinking rational mammals. We have moral and ethical capacity. We have the God given ability to act NOT on impulse devoid of reason, but out of thought and judgment. Those who do not do so should not be excused because of their personal weakness.

quote:

Five, I have demonstrated that survival and recreation, via the continuation of the bloodline, is the prime biological impulses of life and how males propensity for promiscuity serves a biological purpose, where there is little species benefit to female promiscuity.

It would seem logical that the perpetuation of the species is a trait shared equally by all of the species. If not, then how would the species continue? If one gender was somehow disproportionately interested, versus the other disinterested, that would seem to be a guaranteed prescription for demise.

Furthermore, as I said above, explaining away inappropriate behavior because of "biology" does not hold water. Do we excuse murder or assault, for example, because of biology? Hey, men have testerone. It makes them quicker to conflict with other males. Sometimes stuff happens and people get hurt. It's a guy thing - no need to prosecute.

I have the biological need to eat. Does society excuse my behavior of breaking into a grocery store to steal food?

quote:

Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.

Whatever your rationale, sexism is inappropriate and immoral. By holding women to a different standard you inflict upon them a set of expectations that inhibit their ability to live their lives as they see fit. That is wrong, IMO.

You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.

By Noah the African

Oh, how paternalistic and condescending.

I'm reminded of an account of a British Missionary's reference to the Black Africans he encountered. He referred to them as "Noble and Elegant Beasts."

Your rationale for your sexism leaves me with the same taste in my mouth.

I know you are more intelligent than that MBM. If men are attracted to sex, PERIOD, as you say, then does it not logically follow that if women control the offering of sex to men that they could steer men's behavior? Men cannot have intercourse by themselves, they need the women and if women are only giving it up under a certain set of conditions, say something wild like MARRIAGE, then such restrictions would naturally inspire men to get married, due to their obsession with sex. To suggest that the responsibility of male behavior rest solely with the man ignores the reason why men behave as they do. Your position is not tenable, because it ignores reality.

Well, given what is happening today, the presupposing is true. Yes, men SHOULD be responsible, but how should women respond or protect themselves and their future in light of the EVIDENCE that many men are NOT being responsible and utopians offer no viable plan for such behavior to change? In other words, if men are proving not trust worthy, why keep trusting them in a 50-50 deal to hold up their end? They are taking the risk despite the calculus that it is bad.

So, you are saying that biology has no bearing on behavior MBM? I will wait for your research results and methodology to be published in the New England Journal of psychology before I accept that proposition. That is absolutely absurd. Behaviors are a product of nature and nurture my good friend, not just one or the other and biology is a product of nature.

No, we do not excuse murder and assault because of biology, but scientists do use biology to explain the difference in rates of murder and assault between male and females. That having been said, why are you not pushing for equality of that behavior? Women should be murdering as many people as men. It's not fair that males be the gender that gets to commit the vast majority of murders. It is sexist to try and keep women from being just a murderous as men.

Does not the Bible hold women and men to a different set of expectations and standards? Did not God via nature create men and women different for a purpose? Everything was not meant to be equal.

You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.

By Noah the African

Oh, how paternalistic and condescending.

I'm reminded of an account of a British Missionary's reference to the Black Africans he encountered. He referred to them as "Noble and Elegant Beasts."

Your rationale for your sexism leaves me with the same taste in my mouth.

How I view and treat women is irrelevant to your interpretation. Your insecurity or hedonistic desires is what apparently make you see my statement as condescending. If I exalt and praise God, am I being condensing to God? Your statement is only indication that YOU don't believe that women are of superior design and purpose, hence, you can't believe that I believe such, which leads to you "projecting" that I am being condescending.

The people that I love and or respect the most in my life are all females. Because I have a great deal of respect for women and high set of expectations for women, makes me a sexist? What kind of twisted world do you people reside in? High expectations are only placed upon those whom one is confident in their abilities. Low expectations are reserved for those who are seen as inferior. The fact that I place high expectation upon women is a praise of women, not a condemnation or disrespect.

It is sad that so many of you are going to such length to rationalize the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men. It's not an argument that men are amoral, hedonistic and much more...however, why do women need to follow men off this cliff? It is because you see sin as a pleasure and are jealous that you are not getting to enjoy the pleasures of sin to the same degree as men. Thus, you are making the devils argument by rationalizing why women should have the equality of sin. Are you sure that is what you want?

Noah - I've not resorted to attacking you personally. I'm not sure I understand why you are reverting to the appraoch that you have. I can certainly play that game if you wish however.

quote:

Originally posted by Noah The African:

If men are attracted to sex, PERIOD, as you say, then does it not logically follow that if women control the offering of sex to men that they could steer men's behavior?

Noah - men and women enjoy sex equally. The fact that you associate a double standard to that feeds the rest of your misperceptions on this issue.

BTW - IF there was any control here it would be counterbalanced by the man's control over commitment and marriage.

quote:

Men cannot have intercourse by themselves, they need the women and if women are only giving it up under a certain set of conditions, say something wild like MARRIAGE, then such restrictions would naturally inspire men to get married, due to their obsession with sex.

Why aren't you simply pushing men to be more moral and just about their sexual behavior? If you are concerned with sex out of wedlock - why not equally apply responsibility and higher standards to both parties to solve that problem? Why is that seemingly exclusively the woman's problem in your opinion?

You associate a completely self serving and sexist construct to frame the issue of male and female sexuality in a way that categorically panders to the basest of male urges. It is desinged to perpetuate male supremacy and to subjugate women. You're cool with that?

quote:

To suggest that the responsibility of male behavior rest solely with the man ignores the reason why men behave as they do. Your position is not tenable, because it ignores reality.

It absolutely amazes me that you cannot see the absloute absurdity of what you write. Men have no control. They are sexual beasts. The pussy was there so I had to take it!! You know this is logically consistent with the argument that the rape victim wore suggestive clothing so she invited the rape.

quote:

Yes, men SHOULD be responsible, but how should women respond or protect themselves and their future in light of the EVIDENCE that many men are NOT being responsible and utopians offer no viable plan for such behavior to change?

You want advice. Cool.

Men - unless you are prepared to deal with the potentially life long consequences of your sexual behavior - govern yourself accordingly.

Now - how simple is that?

quote:

So, you are saying that biology has no bearing on behavior MBM? I will wait for your research results and methodology to be published in the New England Journal of psychology before I accept that proposition. That is absolutely absurd. Behaviors are a product of nature and nurture my good friend, not just one or the other and biology is a product of nature.

Brother - reading is fundamental. Here is what I said:

quote:

Being biologically "unequal", IMO, has no bearing on male behavior or how we administer the characteristics of responsibility and judgment and discipline etc. in our lives.

And . . .

quote:

We are adult human beings. We are thinking rational mammals. We have moral and ethical capacity. We have the God given ability to act NOT on impulse devoid of reason, but out of thought and judgment. Those who do not do so should not be excused because of their personal weakness.

In short, men may have impulses (nature) but we also, obviously, have the ability to control and focus those urges in a way that benefits ourselves, our families, and society.

quote:

Women should be murdering as many people as men. It's not fair that males be the gender that gets to commit the vast majority of murders. It is sexist to try and keep women from being just a murderous as men.

Society obviously disapproves of murder. Society does not disproportionately disapprove of it from either sex. The fact that men commit more murders than females is precisely indicative of the phenomenon that you are trying to defend. If we can expect men to control themselves as it relates to murder - why not also as it relates to their sexual behavior?

quote:

Does not the Bible hold women and men to a different set of expectations and standards? Did not God via nature create men and women different for a purpose? Everything was not meant to be equal.

Brother - first - it is just plain wrong to discriminate against anyone. This is particularly the case of a group that is the majority on this planet and that does (unfairly) bear the burden of life and parenting.

Do you understsand that the Bible was created by men - with an interest in their perpetuating their control and power? Have you not read the stories about the potentially fundamental role that Mary Magdalene played in the development of Christianity? Are you not aware that her role has been minmized in an effort for men to retain control and power over women in the church?

Also - I fundamentally reject any notion that God would create over 50% of the human beings on this earth (women) to be somehow subordinate to the minority (men). This is just patently ridiculous and morally void. The fact that men have sex organs that do one thing and women have others that do other things implies NO difference in roles, rights, and responsibilities.

I never made a person attack on you MBM. What I said is that I KNOW you to be an intelligent person and I am surprised by you not activating that intellect on this subject matter. You position is emotional, not logical.

The fact that men and women enjoy sex equally has absolutely NOTHING to do with my proposition. I never made any statement in regards to who enjoys sex more. However, there have been studies that show men think about much more than women. In truth, you are losing me bro. The direct question is do women have the power to change male behavior by virtue of the conditions women choose to have sex with a man? Unless you can refute that, we can just move on to the next topic. Men are not going to change their behavior WITHOUT INCENTIVE. Simply lamenting that men SHOULD change on their own is unrealistic, because they are getting to much pleasure as is.

I am pushing men to be more moral but unlike you I realize that men are not going to become more moral via the power of suggestion. I believe that men will behave more moral, in regards to sexuality, as a result of women ceasing to reward immoral behavior with sex.

The ultimate conclusion of my proposition would be that women would be limiting sex to marriage, which would reduce the supply of women for men to be promiscuous with, which would led to more matrimony and more traditional families. Actions produce reaction. No action produces no reaction. The action of women produces reaction in men and the action in men produces reaction in women. Hence, the behavior of men and women are not going to change unless the opposite sex triggers it. Men want sex, more than most other things from a woman. Women want sex, but long term intimacy, security and provisions as well. Females being promiscuous play right into male biological desires, but at the expense of promoting long term intimacy, security and provisions because there are far too many women to get with to rationalize tying yourself down to one. Thus, that state of men and women simply sharing sex leaves the women unsatisfied and the male satisfied, because most women desire much more than sex from a man.

You again are faking my argument instead of making yours. I never said that men have no control and practice not control. In fact, I stated in response to your child defecation analogy that all men are practicing restraint given that they are not having sex with every women they meet who is attractive to them. Of course, opportunity influences and tests a man's will power.

How I view and treat women is irrelevant to your interpretation. Your insecurity or hedonistic desires is what apparently make you see my statement as condescending. by NTA

I am neither insecure nor ceding to hedonistic desites. Rather, in challenging your views on promiscuity, I represent those of us that neither worship, nor ascribe inherent moral flaws and/or weakness, to one gender over another. To do so, is a simplistic, at best, and intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

Be that as it may, how can you, on the one hand claim to rever, love and exalt women; and then in the next breathe, condemn women for failing to meet some vague, moralistic code of conduct, that you have established for them alone? And, how can you argue that your behavior is not sexist?

Your position is similar to that of early desegregation teachers' treatment of gifted Black students. They professed their racial empathy and sincere desire to aid in the students success. They heralded the Black students' abilities, only to fail them, when the students did not meet the impossible standard set for the Black students alone. No amount of praise or adoration was able conceal the teachers' racist nature.

The people that I love and or respect the most in my life are all females. Because I have a great deal of respect for women and high set of expectations for women, makes me a sexist? by NTA

Love and respect aside; YES, setting high expectations for women, makes you a sexist, when you fail to hold males similar expectations. Just like a white person holding Black folk to a higher standards than white folk would rightfully be termed racist.

It is sad that so many of you are going to such length to rationalize the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men. by NTA

This discussion is not about "[our] rationaliz[ing] the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men." It's about exposing your contempt for women, in the guise of adulation, as evidenced by the length you go through to condemn them for conduct that unindicted/excused males are equal parties to.

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.